Stateless Agent Memory Engine (SAME)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this by describing a check/return operation without implying mutation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool returns actionable recommendations and is experimental, which helps the agent understand potential reliability or behavior nuances not covered by annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and output, followed by usage guidance and an experimental note. It is efficient with two sentences, but the second sentence slightly repeats information about returns, making it not perfectly concise. Overall, it is well-structured with minimal waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (health assessment with recommendations), annotations cover safety (read-only), and there is no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns (score, metrics, recommendations) and its experimental nature. However, it could provide more detail on what 'key metrics' entail or error conditions, leaving minor gaps for full completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description adds value by explaining what the tool does without redundant parameter info.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('memory vault'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on health assessment rather than creation, retrieval, or modification operations. It specifies the output (health score, recommendations) which differentiates it from tools like 'index_stats' or 'recent_activity'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to determine if the vault needs consolidation, reindexing, or cleanup'), which implicitly suggests alternatives like 'mem_consolidate' or 'reindex' for remediation. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools, keeping it at a 4.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.